I'm still confused (Trump trial).

[LAS14]

Trump had to have falsified business records to cover up another crime. I gradually came to understand that the "other crime" could be one of several, and that those crimes didn't have to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," but, instead, by "a reasonable person" standard. On Smerconish last night I was reassured to find that someone else besides me was troubled by the lack of clarity. And that there really was a lack of clarity, at least as far as which underlying crimes were used in the verdict. He listed the possible underlying crimes as:

1 - Violations of Federal Election Law

2 - the falsification of other business records.

3 - violation of tax laws

But I've never seen anyone say WHAT violation of Federal Election Law. Or WHAT falsification of business recores. or WHAT violation of tax laws, never mind what evidence was presented to prove that those violations had been committed. I did skim the opening statements looking for such info. I couldn't handle skimming all the transcripts every day. Do any of you know the answers to these questions??

tia
las

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. I have heard #1 referred to and defined multiple times, how his actions could interfere with the

election. Dont have time to find any of it now but should be easy to find.

[LAS14]

8. Did it explain how it differed from just plain campaigning?

[wnylib]

24. Trump paid David Pecker (National Enquirer) to kill negative stories about Trump and to

print false negative stories about Trump's opponents, like the one about Ted Cruz's father being a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and implicated in the death if JFK. They were defrauding the voters with false information and by withholding info about Trump that voters had a right to know before the election. Paying Stormy Daniels to keep quiet and conspiring with Pecker to not report on her encounter with Trump was part of his fraudulent behavior. Pecker was also paid to kill another woman's story about Trump.

[LAS14]

26. "witholding info...that the voters had a right to know."

"and by withholding info about Trump that voters had a right to know before the election. " I just can't believe that a campaign's repressing harmful info about a candidate is illegal. Isn't that what they do all the time?????

[Grown2Hate]

32. The method of "withholding info" was to pay off people to buy and kill the stories, which is an "in kind" campaign

contribution, well over the legal limit of $2500.00 allowed by campaign finance law. To the best of my understanding. So they were skirting that portion of campaign finance law. You can donate all you want through a PAC (thus "dark money" ), but that's not what happened here. To the best of my understanding, anyhow.

[LAS14]

51. Thanks! nt

[wnylib]

36. I'm not quite sure why you are defending Trump

or why you didn't follow the trial enough to know the answers to questions that you are asking.

The payments to Daniels and to Pecker became tax crimes because they were falsely reported in the records kept by Trump. NY law says that a misdemeanor committed to hide one crime in coordination with another crime becomes a felony. I don't have the exact wording of NY state law at hand right now, but there is a part of NY election law that makes such fraudulent behavior as paying to cover and distort information in elections a crime. You can look up that part of NY law yourself as easily as I could.

[LAS14]

52. What in the world makes you think I am defending Trump???????? nt

[wnylib]

55. I misunderstood your questions. I apologize for the assumption.

And I hope that the link I gave you in another post clarifies the charges and the reasons for them.

The trial evidence from written records and from witnesses covered all that information, so that's why the jury voted to convict Trump.

[brush]

58. Do you watch that bothsider Smerconish regularly?

[LAS14]

63. Yep! I don't want to be one of those people caught in a bubble. nt

[brush]

64. Ok, good to know...just another information silo.

[wnylib]

41. Here. I did the work for you. Now it's up to you to do the work of reading it.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-york-election-law-center-trumps-hush-money/story?id=110678995

[LAS14]

53. Grown2Hate beat you to the bunch and was much nicer about it. nt

[wnylib]

88. Yes, probably was much nicer. I'm sorry for my rudeness.

I mistook your questions for someone who was trying to defend Trump and make excuses for him. I was wrong and realize now that you just wanted clarification because some parts of the trial were not easy to understand without knowing how the NY state laws apply to this case. Please accept my apologies.

[LAS14]

91. :-)

[wnylib]

48. Sorry about being curt in my responses. I hope that the link I put on

one of my posts to you helps to clarify the charges and why they were brought.

[LAS14]

54. OK. Thanks. nt

[Cha]

49. The Jury Found TSF GUILT With All the Evidence Presented..

Read all of the charges against Trump in the New York hush-money case

The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said in a statement.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-all-of-charges-against-trump-in-the-new-york-hush-money-case

[viva la]

2. Taxes--

You can't deduct personal expenses as business expenses. Paying someone off like that is personal. Calling that "legal fees" and deducting it is tax fraud, and that's what he did.

So that's one of the crimes.

[LAS14]

9. Thanks. Did the prosecution explain that in the trial? nt

[viva la]

17. I'm sure they did. The opening and closing arguments lasted for hours, and they'd go over the laws then

And that's the sort of crime that's easy to understand, because we all file taxes.
The election stuff was a bit more abstruse (is that the word?) because most of us don't run for office! But IIRC, the issue there is that you have to report "in-kind donations" as well as money donations. What the Natl Enquirer did to shut Karen McDougall up was a donation to Trump's campaign, but it wasn't reported.

It wouldn't be TRUMP if there weren't 4 crimes underlying every action.

[LAS14]

20. I don't believe they did in the opening statement, which I skimmed.

Elsewhere in the thread someone said it wasn't addressed until "right before closing arguments."

[wnylib]

31. Those details were covered in the testimony of witnesses and

in the numerous documents submitted into evidence during the trial..

[magicarpet]

84. obtuse adjective....

Obtuse define;
difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression
It is also, unfortunately, ill-written, and at times obtuse and often trivial.
—Shirley Hazzard

Source: Marriam Webster

[Maeve]

3. His business records were falsified by

Listing hush money as "legal expenses". This was done to cover it as an illegal campaign expense. The coordination with Pecker was an in-kind campaign donation above the legal value and includes the money the Enquirer spent to hush up other sex stories (and liable political opponents). Both violate federal AND NY state laws.

[LAS14]

10. Thanks. Was this explained and proved by the prosecution during the trial? nt

[viva la]

19. The jury found Trump guilty on all counts.

So it was proved to their satisfaction. Why do you think it wasn't proved? The defense had the chance to dispute it all.

[LAS14]

23. I'm talking about the underlying crimes that had to have been...

... the target of concealment by the 34 false business records. They are what raised an expired misdemeanor to an unexpired felony. I didn't hear any reporting about them except by Elie Honig last nigh. Some people in this thread have added clarity.

[MichMan]

90. The jury heard all the evidence and made their decision based on the law.

Likewise with the Derek Chauvin, George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse rulings.

[forthemiddle]

101. Best answer yet!

All convictions (or acquittals) that Trump receives will be considered either fair, or unfair based on your political leanings.
The same will go for the rulings by the Judges.

[wnylib]

37. Didn't you follow any of the NUMEROUS reports on the trial?

You are asking very basic questions, like "Was this or that covered in the trial?" They could not have been voted on by the jury if not covered in the trial.

Your question sounds almost like you want to discredit the verdict. The information is out there for any one to find by doing an online search.

[Maeve]

44. From what I saw, yes. And that's what the jury said

[LiberalFighter]

59. It was clear by the reports from NBC News reporters

They sent notes back to their networks on what was happening every day the court was in session.

MSNBC had notes to the side of the hosts discussing it. And had attorneys with various backgrounds explaining it.

Both CNN and NBC News providing full reports on their Trump hush money notes. That had more info than what was on tv.

There were also transcripts provided by the court after each session.

[LAS14]

61. Right. And I didn't find anyone addressing these particular issues.

Elie Honig said they weren't addressed by the prosecuter until just prior to closing arguments. If I missed any commentary on that brief part of the trial, that's why I turn to DU.

[LiberalFighter]

69. Elie Jonig must be a clone of Jonathan Turley

MSNBC and NBC News had reporters with legal backgrounds in the court room or the overflow room. Legal backgrounds that included New York law.

[Jim__]

60. My recollection of what the talking heads claimed about the judges charge was that all the ...

... jurors had to agree that the records were falsified in order to cover-up another crime, but they did not have to agree on what that other crime was.

[LAS14]

62. But were those other crimes proved during the trial?

Up thread someone said the proof was that Michael Cohen went to jail for all of those crimes. That's the best explanation I've heard so far.

[Jim__]

66. Here's an excerpt from AP - the AP article contains external links.

From AP article

...

The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime.

Prosecutors say the crime Trump committed or hid is a violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.

For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was.

...

By my reading, the jurors did not have to agree that any one particular other crime was committed. They did not have to be unanimous as to what other crime was committed.

[Happy Hoosier]

99. Yes. Exhaustively.

And convinced all 12 jurors, including a couple who might not be inclined to accept prosecution arguments at face value.

[blm]

4. The services Pecker provided Trump via National Enquirer were illegal campaign donations.

[LAS14]

11. In what way illegal? Not saying they weren't. Just want to understand. And...

... when, in the trial, did the prosecution prove that that happened and was illegal?

[blm]

16. In-kind campaign donations. Prosecution used this

2021: The FEC concluded that American Media Inc., now known as A360 Media LLC, made an illegal corporate contribution to Trump’s campaign by paying Karen McDougal $150,000 to give up the rights to her story about Trump

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/01/national-enquirer-owner-trump-campaign-491557

[LAS14]

21. Thanks!! Did the prosecution explain this in the trial? nt

[viva la]

25. Yes. Repeatedly.

In the opening arguments.
When presenting evidence and questioning witnesses.
In the closing arguments.

The prosecution did a good job explaining everything, and it shows, because the jury found Trump guilty on all counts.

[blm]

28. Huh? It was brought up during Pecker's questioning and the summation.

And here at DU, repeatedly….MANY times.

[viva la]

27. It is illegal to accept a contribution and not report it.

It's also illegal to deduct personal expenses and call them legal expenses.

[RandomNumbers]

5. I agree that it would be good to get clear on this point.

Unfortunately, it seems the media prefers to dumb things down rather then spell out crystal-clear details.

My summary would be as follows - "dumbed down" by necessity because I am not that smart about it and haven't had time to chase down all the details:

1. Michael Cohen went to jail due to pleading guilty to several criminal charges related to the payment to Stormy Daniels.
2. Trump was essentially found guilty of participating in a conspiracy with Cohen to do the things Cohen went to jail for.

If Cohen's actions broke laws, but he was directed by Trump to do those actions, and PAID by Trump to do those actions - which is essentially a big part of what the recent trial found - then it's pretty clear that what Trump did was a crime. Misdemeanor or felony? That is where "covering up another crime" comes in.

3. Trump did attempt to hide his involvement, that is pretty clear. The trial details list out various documents that he falsified. These were falsified to cover up the crimes that he conspired with Cohen to do.

Okay, clear as mud perhaps, but I guess the first thing is to understand, what were the crimes Cohen did, that Trump conspired with him about, then falsified business records to cover up?

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cohen_(lawyer)

In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight counts including campaign-finance violations, tax fraud, and bank fraud. Cohen said he violated campaign-finance laws at Trump's direction "for the principal purpose of influencing" the 2016 presidential election. In November 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to U.S. congressional committees about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

In December 2018, Cohen was sentenced to three years in federal prison and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine. In February 2019, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, disbarred him from practicing law in the state.

Does that help?

[LAS14]

12. Do we know WHICH campaign finance laws Cohen broke? The phrase...

... "for the principal purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election" has always mystified me. Aren't campaigns all about "influencing the presidential election?" That phrase was repeated so often, as if it explained something.

[viva la]

22. We didn't sit and hear all the evidence. But the jury did.

And they found him guilty. So the prosecution proved the case against Trump.

[getagrip_already]

43. Actually, the tax fraud was completely unrelated to trumps case

It had to do with his taxi medallions in Chicago. He leased them to someone who collected taxes from cabbies but never paid them to the city or feds. The feds charged him even though he wasn't responsible. He would have beaten that charge but took the plea to protect his wife.

The bank fraud charges stemmed from his heloc loan to get the $130k to pay stormy. He misrepresented what he was going to use the money for. Which is bank fraud. That's not something you could stick tsf with, although there was a conspiracy, so who knows.

The campaign finance violations were part of the conspiracy.

Cohen took the plea deal because if he didn't, the feds were going to charge him and his wife with dozens of counts each that could result in decades in prison for each of them.

[EleanorR]

6. election law

Sorry, hopefully someone smarter than me can pull the pics out for those who can't see the post.

Link to tweet

[LAS14]

14. Yes, I hope someone can deliver those pics. Honig's "until right before...

... closing arguments" was a real teaser.

[cayugafalls]

42. It was laid out in the indictment. Link provided...below.

People all over are taking things out of context to create FUD in the masses.

DA Bragg's indictment of Convicted Felon Trump was solid. The unlawful means are spelled out clearly right after it is declared in the indictment.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4d9a-dc00-a3d7-4d9f97b40000

[LAS14]

92. Thanks!

What does FUD mean?

[cayugafalls]

100. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Oops, forgot to explain the acronym. lol

My bad...

[John1956PA]

102. The best that I could come up with was . .

. . . "F***ed-Up Dystopia." Thanks for clarifying the meaning as "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt."

[cayugafalls]

103. I like your thinking. It makes sense. FUD leads to fud...

[madashelltoo]

7. New York violations

New York election laws. New York tax violations. Falsification of New York business records.

[LAS14]

15. Right. But WHAT violations? nt

[Ferrets are Cool]

86. This, sheesh.

I cannot believe this non issue is being brought up on DU.

[claudette]

81. Which was the

misdemeanor crime committed to cover up the felony of an illegal campaign contribution because buying her silence affected the election.

[Ohio Joe]

13. Look at it this way...

Someone is breaking into a house and sets off a silent alarm… The police dispatcher gets it and notifies a car a block away. The cop catches the person in the house… That is burglary. The act of entering a place you do not have access to. This person would be charged with burglary in furtherance of another crime. It might be theft… Or assault… Or arson… No one knows, and it doesn’t matter. One does not simply break in just to break in and they are unlikely to admit why they did it.

One also does not falsify business records for shits and giggles. It is done in furtherance of another crime. Every state has this statute and it is used all the time. The other crime is not provable but obviously exists and could be one of several things.

[LAS14]

18. It can't be that simple. We are, after all, given a list of crimes...

"It might be theft… Or assault… Or arson… No one knows, and it doesn’t matter. One does not simply break in just to break in and they are unlikely to admit why they did it." If this were the governing principle, ALL falsifications of business records could be assumed to be in aid of covering up another crime.

The list is just too generic, although some folks up thread have clarified a little.

[Ohio Joe]

33. " ALL falsifications of business records could be assumed to be in aid of covering up another crime"

They are… Sort of.

My brother was an auditor for DOD for 20 years and this is exactly what he looked for. The reason this case seems so unusual is because pretty much nobody fights in court. Every time someone is caught they are told to take the misdemeanor and pay a fine in line with the crime or when we go to trial it will be prosecuted as in furtherance of another crime and as a felony.

So while they are ALL in furtherance of another crime, they are rarely charged that way because pretty much everyone takes the deal.

[getagrip_already]

39. Yes, it is that simple....

Each juror could decide on a different crime to be in furtherance of the underlying crime. That's what the judge meant when he said they didn't need to be unanimous in their decision of the second crime, just that one was likely to be committed.

Just like in the example above, if the burglar had condoms and safe cracking tools, some jurors might think hebintended rape while others might have concluded he intended robbery.

It is just that simple.

[wnylib]

40. Take the trouble to read this link from ABC. It answers your questions.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-york-election-law-center-trumps-hush-money/story?id=110678995

[LAS14]

50. THANK YOU!!! nt

[ecstatic]

47. I think the 3 options were given so that the jury didn't waste unnecessary time trying to figure out trump's motives

Whether trump falsified the records in order to violate election law, falsify business records, or skirt tax laws doesn't matter. All three reasons are a felony in NY.

[unblock]

29. I think it's:

Campaign finance laws by concealing a contribution.

Tax fraud by taking a business deduction for a personal expense

The "other business record" might just be that the original crime had to do with two trump organization subsidiaries, and the "other" records were the trump organization consolidated records.

[AnrothElf]

65. It's a fair question, and ... Yup. I think this is it.

“The participants’ scheme was illegal,” Bragg said. “The scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. The $130,000 wire payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap. And the false statements in AMI’s books violated New York law. That is why Mr. Trump made false statements about his payments to Mr. Cohen.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/whats-in-trumps-indictment/

The tax fraud was part of the cover-up, as well.

I believe the "other" here would be Trump Org.'s bookkeeping calling it a retainer for Cohen. The checks themselves I believe were considered fraudulent, along with the falsified invoices, etc.

[LAS14]

93. Thank you! nt

[The Bopper]

30. If

You were really interested, you’d have read the daily synopsis, you seem to be trying to second guess the jury who actually heard, paid attention and found that all the allegations as founded. It’s almost like you are trolling.

[LAS14]

71. Baloney. nt

[claudette]

80. Following the daily updates

online made it much easier to understand. especially the judge's instructions.

[aeromanKC]

34. Read the fucking judges jury instructions.

[LAS14]

94. Well, thanks for giving me the info I didn't have, that...

... the jury instructions was where to find it. But you don't sound like a nice person...

[aeromanKC]

98. I thought you were a GOP mole

Sorry about that. But if you were I wouldn't be.

[mercuryblues]

35. The crime was the payoffs

Not the affairs.
Not even paying people off to sign an NDA is a crime.

The crime was how he structured the payoffs. He funneled money through his business, paid Cohen, who payed off Stormy and a several others.

This was all done so the voters would not find out about him cheating on his wife when she had just given birth to Baron or paying for an abortion.

That is called election interference.

[TexasDem69]

46. But which laws did he violate?

It wasn’t federal law or the DOJ would have prosecuted.

[mercuryblues]

68. falsification of business records.

IDK if the DOJ could prosecute or not. My guess is they could.

Falsifying the records were to keep the public from knowing about his affairs. Which was election interference. They way they structured the payments the way they did was to evade taxes.
Which is also why his charges were felonies, not misdemeanors

Here a a link to all 34 charges. It will explain each one to you.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictment-34-felony-counts-charges-new-york-read/

[Ms. Toad]

72. He was convicted of violating a new york criminal law -

He falsified business records (a crime in New York). Normally that crime is a misdemeanor, but it is elevated to a felony if not only were the business records falsified, but his intent in doing so was not just to falsify the records - but also included an intent to do so for the purpose of commititing another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

That other crime (which he intended to commit or conceal) can be either another NY crime, or a federal crime. (Prosecution argued for a broader meaning which would might have included civil offenses which are unlawful but not criminal - but the judge rejected that broader meaning.)

To use the analogy given above (with modifications to correct the law): Trespassing is (1) entering the property of another (2) without the consent of the owner (3) with the intent to stay there. Burglary is (1) tresspassing (2) with the intent to commit a felony therein (and a couple of other elements not relevant here). That felony doesn't necessarily have to be a state felony - it could be a federal felony. So, completing the analogy, the felony Trump was convicted of was (1) falsification of business records (2) with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

The prosecution give the jury three potential "other" crimes to consider - one of which was violating the Federal Election Campaign Act - a federal crime, not a state one.

So - even if the jury decided that his purpose in falsifying the business records was to commit or conceal violations of the Federal Election Campaign act - it didn't convict him ot it (and he did not necessarily even have to have committed it - it just has to be part of what he intended when he committed the misdemeanor of falsifying the records). Or the intended crime could have been one of the other crimes (different falsification of records, or tax law violations) - and the jury didn't all have to agree which "other" crime he intended - as long as each juror determined that he was falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

Note: this is likely to be a ground for appeal - Trump's attorneys will likely argue that Judge Merchan erred by permitting the jury to consider federal crimes as the "other" crime which took it from a misdemeanor to a felony.

[TexasDem69]

73. Thanks for the thorough explanation

Very helpful!

[Ms. Toad]

74. You're welcome. n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. And none of it gets to a grand jury or through a grand jury if it is not a crime etc.

[Ms. Toad]

82. He was charged with violating a specific statute.

But that isn't what the question was in this thread. And the statute isn't specific as to the crime that elevates misdemeanor falsification of business records to a felony.

In this case, the grand jury (a) paraphrases the statute, (b) identifies the record falsified, without (c) suggesting what the underlying crime is that Trump intended to commit or conceal. So reading the charging document doesn't answer the question asked in this thread, since it offers no more clarity as to the elevating "other" crime.

I'm pretty sure Trump has preserved the argument both about the lack of specificity as to the "other" crime (jurors did not have to agree as to a single other crime) - and as to the concern that the jury could have (impermissibly in Trump's view) used a federal crime as the elevating felony. I'd expect to see both of those concerns raised on appeal. The fact that a grand jury passed on it won't make a bit of difference to the appellate court. A grand jury is filled with ordinary citizens who were called to serve on it in the same manner as jurors called to serve on a petit jury (a trial jury). They don't have any special knowledge of the law.

[LAS14]

95. I second TexasDem69's reply. Very helpful! nt

[appmanga]

85. That's not true...

...there's a thing called "prosecutorial discretion" and the Southern District of New York, prompted by the Trump Justice Department, declined to prosecute Trump, who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in Michael Cohen's federal case.

I'm taking your questions in good faith. The NY jury was asked to consider if the misdemeanor crimes of falsifying business records was in furtherance of any other crime. That would elevate those misdemeanors to felonies and the underlying crimes. One of the underlying crimes was the violation of NY State election law. Violations of tax reporting could also be considered. The judge gave an instruction which the jury read read to them a second time, at their request, so I think they had a clear idea of what they were being asked to do.

[TexasDem69]

87. Thanks for the response

But to be clear, he was not charged by the DOJ with any federal crime, correct?

[TexasDem69]

45. It's complicated and not easy to explain

Unlike the charges accusing Trump of stealing classified documents. I still can’t tell you exactly what law he violated. Paying a porn star to keep quiet about an affair isn’t a crime, but apparently coupling that payment with a presidential campaign is? I think that’s why this conviction isn’t going to move the needle much re the presidential election.

[Aussie105]

56. 12 carefully selected jurors were given all the facts.

12 carefully selected jurors spent a lot of time listening to legal arguments.

12 carefully selected jurors debated the details in the jury room.

12 carefully selected jurors found him guilty on all charges.

That is all anyone needs to know.

[Jim__]

57. Here is a copy of the indictment and the law he was charged under.

The indictment consistently (details as to check numbers and payees differ) lists the crimes as :

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses
the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice
from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump
Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization..

New York Penal Law 175.10:

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

I leave it up to lawyers to say how the appeal is likely to go.

[AnrothElf]

67. Reading the thread and you dismiss all the replies makes me wonder...

If rather than "confused" maybe you're really just "concerned"?

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/whats-in-trumps-indictment/

“Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with an intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime,” Bragg said in the press conference after the arraignment. “That is exactly what this case is about.”

“Why did Donald Trump repeatedly make these false statements? The evidence will show that he did so to cover up crimes relating to the 2016 election,” Bragg said.

Tying the false statements to alleged election law crimes underpins Bragg’s case to elevate the crimes to felonies.

“The participants’ scheme was illegal,” Bragg said. “The scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. The $130,000 wire payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap. And the false statements in AMI’s books violated New York law. That is why Mr. Trump made false statements about his payments to Mr. Cohen.”

[LAS14]

70. "You dismiss all the replies?????" I thanked a number of people!!! nt

[struggle4progress]

75. When candidate spends money to further campaign, the expenditure must be reported,

but the business records were falsified to cover up the campaign-related expenditure and to avoid reporting it

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. Good explanation also. Election interference is what the story is, may not be the

legal story but it is the big story or big picture.

People saying it changes them from voting for him, I dont believe those people.

[MichMan]

89. The way I understand it is that any politician who enters into an NDA must report it as a campaign contribution

Regardless of what it was for or what office they hold.

[LAS14]

96. Thanks! nt

[MLAA]

78. I remember the judge saying they did not need to be unanimous on which underlying crime each jurist was

Influenced by as long as they each believed there was at least one underlying crime.

[claudette]

79. I could be wrong

but I think I heard one lawyer on TV explain it that the money paid by Dump to Cohen to cover up the affair was fraudulently reported and broke the campaign laws because it was considered an illegal contribution to the campaign.

It's been explained so many times - I don't have ANY doubt that a fraudulent entry on a business form (misdemeanor) was committed to hide a felony campaign law.

[tavernier]

83. By explanation, someone compared it to a murder where the body

had bullet wounds, strangulation marks, and poison in the toxicology. The jury had to vote unanimously if they thought the defendant was the killer based on all the presented evidence, but could choose one of the above three as the actual cause of death.

[LAS14]

97. Excellent! That wasn't actually my question.

I'd figured that out, but your analogy is crystal clear.